I agree that Apple should offer a refund. I've never purchased any Apple hardware or software...is the OS listed as a separate line item on the invoice? If it is, then it should be refundable.

There unfortunately is a long-standing tradition of stomping Microsoft every step of the way for proprietary shenanigans but looking the other way when Apple commits the same sins. (In this way, the geek community is collectively like a corrupt wrestling referee who clearly favors one fighter over another.)

As a BSD zealot, Apple gives me a warm gooey feeling inside, and I commend them for their engineering and industrial design prowess. As for respecting user freedom, however, I eye them with as much suspicion as that Redmond company.

All proprietary shenanigans should be stomped equally, regardless of vendor.

In Microsoft's case, they dont make PC's. Apple does. So while Apple can claim that they are selling a single product, Microsoft can not. Apple also doesn't sell their OS to just anyone. You have to have a Mac. So Microsoft is really a different animal when it comes to this type of thing.

Also, Microsoft's own EULA dictates that they can receive the refund. It may have been part of the settlement over the anti trust issues, but they still agreed to it. Making it difficult for the end user to actually collect the refund is what is getting them sued.

A few months ago I was going to buy a Lenovo laptop. I email their customer services and asked if they offered refunds on Windows. They said there was nothing to refund, because the laptop I was asking about had a FREE version of Windows pre-installed.

I asked around and some people said it could have been true, they could have a deal where MS provides Windows for free, in return Lenovo push Windows on all of their laptops.

I in the end I decided not to buy Lenovo laptop, too expensive and the screen quality on most of their laptops is really bad. I went to novatech.co.uk and got a cheap NetTop without any OS, then installed NetBSD, Linux and Solaris. So there are some hardware retailers that give you the option of buying desktops/laptops without MS Windows. People just have to vote with their wallets.

Good luck to anyone who manages to do this, without building your own machine from scratch.

That is what I do. By doing so I am in total control as well.
Doing it with a laptop is virtually impossible and certainly more expensive.
The only reason why I could ask for a refund is that you get tons of crap bundled and you don't even get an original Windows DVD.

The difference is that Apple does not own majority. You have an option to not buy Apple. But Microsoft has majority. You have almost no option to not buy Microsoft Windows as all "free" PC hardware has Windows preinstalled. And Microsoft play unfair to reach 100% penetration (the retailer refunds you but Microsoft does not refund retailer - if retailer wants to sell Windows preinstalled, then must pay for all PCs beeing sold to Microsoft even there were refunds).

In addition to taking your business to stores that don't force-feed you Windows -- such as some "mom 'n pop" outfits in my area -- there is always the option of buying second-hand.

Linux- and BSD-based operating systems tend to be less demanding of hardware resources, so an older machine can go much further without bloated commercial offerings weighing it down. (Even more to the point, NetBSD users already know they could probably get their OS running on a soggy cardboard box with a dead squirrel in it.)

Also, this is a better environmental choice, and allows you to not reward whatever third world sweatshop manufactured the machine.

Perhaps the above is indicative of the basic mindset differential between proprietary and FOSS. With proprietary systems, the hardware has to conform to the OS. With FOSS systems, the OS is meant to be adjusted, modified and/or reduced to your system's needs.

I don't see why you think Apple shouldn't have to play by the same rules as Microsoft. Just because they have a smaller market share on the desktop market doesn't mean they don't have to play by the same rules. Also please keep in mind that Apple is just as big as Microsoft. They both make billions of dollars every year.

I don't see why you think Apple shouldn't have to play by the same rules as Microsoft. Just because they have a smaller market share on the desktop market doesn't mean they don't have to play by the same rules. Also please keep in mind that Apple is just as big as Microsoft. They both make billions of dollars every year.

It's really got nothing to do with market share. See the earlier post, Apple are selling a single product. Apple sell the Mac specifically to run OSX, which Apple also produce, and therefore it's sold as a single unified product. The fact that others have written OS's that will run on the Mac is immaterial because the Mac isn't sold as generic hardware - it's sold as hardware that runs Mac OSX. PC vendors choose to bundle Windows with their generic hardware and the whole PC industry has played the "oh but over here you have more choice" card for years - you can't have it both ways.

In saying that, this is pure stupidity. If Microsoft have put a procedure in place then that's the procedure, as are any caveats that go along with it. If the PC vendor is "giving" you the Windows license that would (should) be outlined somewhere in their T&C or EULA and anyone planning on pushing for a refund should have read these before proceeding.

Whinging about it is like bellowing about having to fill in forms and get credit history checks to get a housing loan, or provide a detailed description of the accident and your driving history to make an insurance claim. The problem is that everyone wants to pass all responsibility back to the vendor. What about the requirement that individuals actually READ the details about shit they're buying? You know, like the EULA or T&C's or PDS's.

We've seen a lot of that in this part of the world recently. Following some of the worst floods in the country's history people are screaming at their insurance companies because they're not offering cover for flood damage to their homes, yet it's common practise in the industry to tell people up-front, at the time the policy is being established, that flood damage from swollen rivers is not covered. For some insurers it's in their script THREE times. Then it's all covered in detail in the Product Disclosure Statement that is received by the client, AND there's a 14 day cooling off period (and no I'm not involved in the insurance industry). Yet people still exclaim "BUT YOU DIDN'T TELL ME!!!!!" The fact is they didn't want to pay the higher premium through other insurers who do cover flood damage then they whine when it bites them. An all-too-familiar scenario.

People don't want to be responsible for their own actions, and as our retarded governments introduce more and more asinine laws to replace common sense, that situation will only get worse.

I dont think its the case of people not reading the EULAs as much as it is that the EULA is not being honored. Thats why this made it to court. People being whiny would have been thrown out before now.

It's really got nothing to do with market share. See the earlier post, Apple are selling a single product. Apple sell the Mac specifically to run OSX, which Apple also produce, and therefore it's sold as a single unified product. The fact that others have written OS's that will run on the Mac is immaterial because the Mac isn't sold as generic hardware - it's sold as hardware that runs Mac OSX. PC vendors choose to bundle Windows with their generic hardware and the whole PC industry has played the "oh but over here you have more choice" card for years - you can't have it both ways.

Did you ever hear of BootCamp, written and actively marketed by Apple? You are right, you can't have it both ways! So why did you try it?

I don't see why you think Apple shouldn't have to play by the same rules as Microsoft. Just because they have a smaller market share on the desktop market doesn't mean they don't have to play by the same rules. Also please keep in mind that Apple is just as big as Microsoft. They both make billions of dollars every year.

Yeah! I'm gonna call Sansa and Linksys and ask them to refund me the money for the Sansa and Linksys firmwares that I have replaced with rockbox and dd-wrt respectively... the original firmware on both was junk, and I bought them intending to replace them as such.

But really: The reason you can request a refund for Windows is because Microsoft specifically states that you should in their EULA if you do not agree to it.

"I don't see why you think Apple shouldn't have to play by the same rules as Microsoft. Just because they have a smaller market share on the desktop market doesn't mean they don't have to play by the same rules. Also please keep in mind that Apple is just as big as Microsoft. They both make billions of dollars every year."

It very much has to do with the marketing model, Apple is a hardware company and the end product (both hardware and software) is considered to be one product. Microsoft Windows is essentially third party software installed on genaric machines.

That being the case, I understand the argument for refunds for people who do not want Windows on their machine, however, I think it is pretty shady to require (require being the key word) a company to offer a refund on a perfectly working product that they knowingly and intentionally purchased.

It ain´t shady at all as long as the EULA states that you have the right to ask for a refund if you do not accept the terms of said EULA ...

The thing is that even if you do buy a computer knowing it has a pre-installed version of Microsoft Windows *, you still don´t know what the terms of it´s EULA are ... and theres when the "is it more beneficila for me to accept the terms of this EULA or will I do better if I don´t?" question kicks in .. if you don´t, well ... the same EULA states that you have a legal right to get a refund for the price of the software in question.

The "knowingly and intentionally" factor only affects the features of the product ... not the terms of the EULA, which of course, you don´t know in advanced ...

You can perfectly clarify EULA conditions *before* you are buying anything. The problem is, that hardware vendors aren't scared to violate customer protection laws, assuming that only a small minority will have a determination to call them to court. Microsoft is only very happy with it, since it upholds their monopoly.